You'd think after all this time they'd realize that when this many people, from this many viewpoints, with this many different agendas, are saying that what Shuster said was sexist, demeaning, indefensible and beneath contempt, it really, really is.

and who would they be? Family values types I imagine. To all of them let this severve as notice. One of that Family Values shared by Clinton, Obama and all of us is the honor of our families. We know no limits in their defense. Now, certainly this clashes with family values like that of prominent GOP'ers..McCain for example. If you ( GWB ) smear his child with insults related to prostitution, as in referring to her as the progeny of a relationship with a prostitute, it leads to you hugging the man ( GWB ) on stage a few years later. In the case of a Liberal, such a remark would make you a mortal enemy for life! That is what you are seeing here. Clinton will not give up this fight and I admire her for that. One might ask who the real prostitute was in the McCain mess.

and may I add that I hope this is a wake up call about language, appropriate language. There is a time and place for slang and "dirty" words, but the MSN and public discourse should not appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The MSM is certainly a problem with respect to anti-Hillary sentiment, but frankly it's getting out of hand in the supposedly more enlightened blogsosphere as well. Even taking into account that bloggers have every right to endorse and advocate for a particular candidate on their private spaces, this latest Huffington Post front page photo/cover story is just jaw-dropping for its disparate treatment of HRC:

Wow, no sooner had I hit the post button, then I went back to HP and they had updated the photo, apparently from the numerous complaints in the comments. Guess folks in all parts of the media are getting earfuls today about the anti-HRC nonsense.

blogsphere is enlightened?? I don't know. anyone can comment, and I don't know them from Adam.

It doesn't necessarily follow that people on blogs have strong policy positions and then go to a candidate. The reverse could be very true of the posters who push a blog like dkos. They are many campaign supporters and they could sell the craziest things, just b/c their candidate said so. There is a difference here between activist and partisan, and I prefer a lot of the former, and a few of the latter.

As Jeralyn and others have noted Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Tucker Carlson have fostered the climate that made Schuster's remark possible. (Not to mention Joe S's offhand "Don't make me backhand you," to Mika Z. the other day. One of the worst remarks I've heard made to a woman on TV.)

When do Chris, Joe, and Tucker apologize and serve their suspensions? The prejudice against women in decision making roles is so accepted as to be unremarked. I do not think that MSNBC understands that it's not just one or more comments for which they have to apologize, it's a whole culture they have to change. Chelsea just got hit by a chauvinist side-swipe.

...gave a good apology but the real test will be how NBC management handles Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. Anti-Hillary hit jobs based on little more than a program host's personal biases have no place on a responsible news program. Yet those kind of hit jobs occur on an almost daily basis at MSNBC. If NBC management is really serious they have a big job ahead of them. If management isn't willing to make some changes in their on-air personalities it is almost 100% certain there will be more incidents like this because Matthews, Scarborough and Carlson have biases, including an egregious anti-Hillary bias, and a lack of self-control that are hardwired in. A slap on the wrist from management won't get it done.

making is taking ALL OF THE BIG BLUE STATES FOR GRANTED THAT WE WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA....I have spoken with tons of old line democrats that say they will probably sit out the election...and Obama spewing off GOP talking points will not be forgotten any time soon....In the past NOONE HAS EVER WON THE GENERAL ELECTION WITHOUT WINNING THE BIG STATES....period!!!!!!

Democrats should not sit out this election regardless of the nominee. Obama may not be my first choice but it's essential to get a Democrat back in the White House. Can you imagine what our Supreme Court will look like if another Republican gets in?

This site supports Democrats. I will support Obama if he is nominated and I urge our readers to do the same.

Obama is big about unity, and often refers to the Republicans united with the Democrats, and then I saw how his unity message didn't mesh with what his campaign was doing with Bill Clinton. Obama was supposedly being attacked with racist remarks. I checked each instance, and found it was all a narrative. Obama just let the narrative get out of control because it benefited him. He is just another preacher.

that position even if the Democratic leadership steals the top spot from Clinton? I think that it has already been decided that Obama will be the nominee and that he will offer the VP to a woman. Not to Hillary, but to one of the two woman Govenors (who have already been notified that they are on the short list). The Ted Kennedy's in the Democratic party have decided that women will be satisfied with this, a women VP will smooth over the issues this 2008 primary has caused and put a Democrat in the White House. I am not sure that women across this country will agree. I am deeply troubled by the failure of the Dem Party to not only step up to defend any Democrat treated this way by the press, but to participate in the onslaught of unfairness.

The only way Hillary can hope to be the nominee is if she takes a commanding lead in the remaining states, and we can see the stepped up efforts to destroy her in the Press.

The Dem Party needs to figure out how they are going to handle this BEFORE we end up in at a brokered convention. Dems do poorly after a brokered convention. Neither cnadidate has a chance in the GE.

Everyone need to know the game plan ahead of time to calm accusations of bias.

Sen Obama does support the Dem Party... and if he doesn't then I beleive his career is in jeapardy. Sen Clinton WILL support Sen Obama should he be the Dem nominee. She's been dedicated to the Dem party too long to even think about bolting from the party when it needs her support. Women should follow her lead in this. She will be the mentor to lead them back to the party.

Should Sen Clinton get the nomination then Michelle will have to support Sen Clinton even with her hint of not doing so. Too bad, but Michelle has no choice. Same with Sen Obama, he needs to lead his supporters to the Dem nominee with full dedication. He needs to also be a mentor to bring the Dem Party together.

but Obama's argument is that the big Blue states will go blue no matter what so voters selecting Hillary is irrelevent. States that Obama won, that will go red no matter what illustrate that he is the best choice for the nomination. Hillary currently has won more delegates and won the popular vote, but Obama is touted by everyone as the winner.

I totally agree. I mean how can simpl take all of Hillary's 7 million voters for granted. If they wanted to choose you, they would have done that. I think it is dumb of him to disregard her voters and take them for granted. If he gets the nomination, I think he'll lose. Especially since the Repubs have all this time to strategize against the Dems. Plus Obama has only made one trip abroad in his adult life - to London - and that is his extent of first hand foreign policy.

Those are the ones that will tell us more -- since as you say, solidly blue states will stay blue, solidly red states will stay red.

One close state was New Mexico, as I recall. And look what is going on there -- we still don't know who won.

The closest blue state to turning red last time was Wisconsin, and that primary is still 10 days away. Ohio is even farther in the future.

I can't recall other very close states that could be the test to watch, but maybe others here do.

Well, of course, there was the infamously close state of Florida in recent elections. . . . But it doesn't count. Not because of the DNC, though. Nope, it's because Clinton got more votes there than any candidate. Looks like staying on the good side of Floridians would make sense if we want to win the White House . . . but that seems less and less important than all these media-created battles to distract us from how to win in November. Hmmmm.

Got any idea how the chips are going to fall in Wisconsin? All the pundidiots seem to be all ready putting the win in Obama's column. I haven't a clue. But then I never have a clue about why people vote the way they do. I am in Paul Ryan's district and I have never voted for him and don't understand why working class people keep voting for him even though he never saw a bill supporting corporate American that he doesn't support. I will never figure it out!

Obama had almost the entire Dem establishment behind him in MO. He eked out a little less than a 10,000 vote victory. He won in all the counties that always vote Democratic and lost in the counties where Dems normally lose. Clinton won all of those. Missouri has a completely open primary. We do no even register by party affiliation. If he were getting the independent and cross over Republican voters as he claims, I would think that he would have won at least one or two of the counties that were not Democratic strongholds.

pulled that one out at the last minute primarily by virtue of large urban african american precints in the st. louis area. got just enough to win at that.

i'm not accusing him of anything mind you. i'm just saying it's interesting how that one came out sort of reminiscent of chicago style stuff but hey i'm sure it was all above board. it's not like he's the kind of person who would do anything to win.

Independent and cross over Republican votes went in MO. Like I said it would have taken absolutely no effort on the part of voters in those categories to vote for Obama.

Where are they? If they exist, why didn't he win outside of the Democratic strongholds? Many people have based their votes on the theory that Obama will be stronger in the GE because he can capture those voters. I may be missing something, but I didn't see that happening in MO.

there is certainly more evidence for hillary taking them than there is for obama, but i have yet to find an obama supporter to even concede that point.

as a side note, i know a guy, friend of mine, supports obama. i couldn't even get him to concede that clinton had acutally won the popular vote in california. he couldn't admit it. all he could say was, repeatedly, "it doesn't matter. he's got the delegates. c'mon, it doesn't matter". i swear, and this is my good friend.

to do something is the Clinton camp's threat not to agree to any debates on MSNBC, especially if she is the democratic nominee. That would have a dollar impact on that network. In addition of course to the bad reaction they were getting from the blogosphere.

in effect that a suitable punishment would be the reversal of roles...that David would iron Chelsea's shirts...and that implies that it would normally be the roll of Chelsea to iron David's (or insert any male) shirts...

you aren't being insulting. It just means you are clueless and completely unaware of how your comments demean the other person. In the case of sexism, many men (and sometimes women) are unconscious of the societal attitudes and prejudices that they have absorbed and adopted without any awareness of having done so.

Underlying assumptions that inform speech can be very revealing. The speaker may not realize it, but others listening or reading can pick up on it easily, especially if they have been on the receiving end of such comments for many years. That is why older women get more upset by this than younger women. The young ones are still in the stage of believing that men adore them, which they do sort of -- because young girls are beautiful and have something that men want (unless they are ugly, in which case they get the full treatment at a younger age). The older ones realize that many men hate them, cannot tolerate them in positions of power, love to demean them, hurt them, ridicule and insult them, all the while claiming, " Well, it's your fault, you made me angry," or "It was just a joke. I didn't mean anything by it" or my all time favorite, "You're crazy. You need to see a psychiatrist."

The difference between him and Shuster, though, is that BTD suspended himself. And that leads to another line of thought: Shuster should have done the same. That would have redeemed him -- and maybe would have saved him from the non-apology that only made him look worse.

The questions that should be asked are more fundamental than whether Shuster made a mistake, or Keith has suddenly changed allegiances (remember his interview of Hillary and his towards her) ...until one day he metamorphasized...and was the exact opposite?)

I think we are seeing something far more subversive...and I suggest we reflect on some comments John Grisham made to Charlie Rose recently...John is a big supporter of Hillary and he was talking about the way judges are appointed, elected or rejected...and that it has everything to do with being paid off. His novels are not just fantastical musings...he said as much. So maybe we should see this in the context of a John Grisham novel.

We must be questioning the underlying narrative and whether these people are paid to subvert the truth...paid to obscure objective fact...until they are called out on it...and then they simply apologize and go back to doing the same thing. This is absolutely not about one reporter. It is about a concerted effort to subvert our democracy, which depends on a free press...it is the installation of a parallel propaganda operation in the free press that mirrors the propaganda operation of the Republican party and the George Bush administration. It is ongoing and it is deadly. And many Democrats are complicit in preserving it...again for reasons that are unknown. But it is naive to dismiss it or relegate it to individuals...when it clearly is an organized operation.

It is frightening to be sure...but we must come to terms with its scope. And constantly apologizing or making excuses for individual instances of outrageous behavior, when the entire organization is engaged in propaganda--is a big mistake. Maybe we should identify all the advertisers of MSNBC. But first we must develop the narrative...MSNBC is a manifestly dishonest organization...from top to bottom. We need to get that out...so that the perception of them is the same as Fox. They need to be branded as liars and propagandists...sooner rather than later.

about the owners of MSNBC. General Electric comes to mind, but we really do not know who the main shareholders of GE are. These powerful shareholders most of the time have enough money and influence to make sure that they NEVER appear on any kind of medium.

As a general agenda, what does a Hillary Clinton presidency mean to a company like GE with lots of govt. contracts especially defense related? I wonder if it has anything to do with Hillary's promise to look into all the govt. contracts, especially the no-bid ones. Someone with Hillary's experience in the whitehouse (being there and being a soundboard for Bill Clinton) she would know, in a very short time where to look. For this much money at state, GE cannot afford to have Hillary become president. She is after all, a woman who cannot be a full-fledged member of the backroom, golf circle, or whatever other secret "men only" clubs; never mind if she is POTUS.

Is it possible that they are afraid that she will actually deliver on all her promises?

With BO, companies like GE might have the same reason as Ted Kennedy's endorsement--BO will be more easily pointed in another direction, because he really does not have any experience to know any better, should he become president. How long before he learns the inner workings of the job? How quickly can they cut him off at the knees if he tries to be independent?

(1) her promise to remove the tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs. This will have real economic impact. Where media has been really sinister is their failure to report on economic policies that impact American laborers. For example, the big 3 automakers and their significant shareholdings in the foreign car companies being imported to the U.S. to impact the sales of US automakers to the point where the companies are repeatedly DOWNSIZING? I always wondered why US automakers did not seem to make cars that actuallty competed with the foreign brands in terms of fuel efficiency, and no effort it seems to even save jobs.

(2) suspending no-bid contracts. What is generally not mentioned is the fact that these contracts are at the same time COST + contracts which means, whatever the contractor spends, plus a prearranged rate for a "reasonable profit". I do not know if the American people will ever know how much taxmoney has been siphoned off by Halliburton and others with contracts in Iraq.

(3) The healthcare industry (meaning the insurance companies) Even if the universal healthcare policy that Hillary has put out is endorsed by people who can see the benefit for the American people, the industry knows they are not going to get away with the good cash tree for long by the time Hillary exposes the whole system when she actually proposes her bill to congress.

I am sure that many here can cite other Hillary promises that might be threatening to entrenched corporate interests. Following the money always seem to explain the logic behind the seemingly illogic.

And in a way, accusing the network of being sexist, or some other controversies such as the inappropriate remark mentioned, does not really bother them as much as bringing up topics that they will be hardpressed to explain.

One way to keep a really, really controversial thing to be brought out is to throw or stir up many other scandals that occupy people's attention. This technique as been used by the Bush adm. repeatedly. As in the justice dept. violations--there were just too many, people didn't know where to begin or what to do with it. The Alberto Gonzales fiasco certainly managed to drive the Jack Abramoff topic off the headlines.

because of a simple lack of experience. Edwards, having fought many corporations on behalf of his clients, usually employees or in the case of insurance companies, policy holders, has had a glimpse of the long tentacles of corporate greed and oppression.

But Obama does not have this kind of experience. Without intending to (or knowing about it) an Obama presidency will be like adding fertilizer to an already fertile ground. Of course, this is just my opinion.

corporate policy got rid of Edwards first because it was easy to do. They just did not give him ANY coverage. I remember in the early days of the campaign when I thought that Chris Mathews favored Edwards. Then he just all of a sudden shifted to Obama. Maybe because Hillary Clinton (because she is controversial, with high negatives, etc, etc,) always gets media coverage because people like to see her in the news. Whatever she does or Bill Clinton, or any Clinton IS news. She had to be dealt with differently, the goal is to prevent her from being nominated. Because if she gets nominated, it will be much harder for them to affect public perception.

Matthew Dowd agreed with me. There is more sexism in this country than there is racism. He didn't source this statement.

There was hardly a mention of Clinton. But the name Obama, Obama, Obama was said repeatedly. It reminded me of watching Nascar, where drivers mention their sponsors over and over again because it leads to monetary rewards. Am I a cynic?

The comedian (don't remember his name, and why is it that Republican comedians aren't funny) asked fellow Republicans at a convention which Democrat they might support....The answer: Obama, because he won't know how to get his programs passed (which is why I support Clinton).

Jonah Goldberg shut the hades up, which was nice.

KO's apology was a true apology, yes. He then went on to a kinder, gentler Hillary trashing. He and Alter calmly asserted the Obama talking point wherein Clinton HAD TO REVEAL where the 5 million she borrowed came from. Why no outrage about where all the Romney money came from. And hasn't anybody gotten the memo that the Clintons are loaded? In the 90's I always thought Alter was Republican because of the sneer he would wear when talking about Clintons (coupled with that bad toupe). I changed my mind later. Maybe he's just a Clinton hater?

Shuster's previous life was working the Clinton Beat for Faux News in the 90's. Is anyone surprised that his hatred is bleeding through now?

And what about Tucker? And Joe Scarborough. And himself. And almost every other "journalist" on MSNBC.

There is a long-standing pattern of misogynistic statements from the talent on MSNBC, directed mostly at Clinton but also at other targets. The sheer number of incidents of abusive language on that one network is astounding, even to as hardened a cynic as myself. The fact of the matter is that Shuster didn't really go that much farther than the other talking heads on MSNBC, where hateful rhetoric towards Clinton is commonplace.

Carlson rants about his Clinton castration anxiety. Tweety actually came right out and said, "I hate her. I hate her and all she stands for." He also called Elizabeth Edwards a "ballbuster." Olbermann himself has presided over a veritable festival of sexist hate, albeit directed at female celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith and the like. Olbermann didn't bother to even note those and other over-the-top statements, much less issue official MSNBC apologies for them.

The executives in charge of that network need to confront the fact that this sort of viciousness towards Clinton in particular and women in general has not only been allowed, but encouraged from the top down. Until they do, the behavior of their employees will not change.

and in the next room the show Biography is on and Arnold Swartznegger(sp) is the subject. Just now they replayed one of his speeches to support George Bush. He described the Democrats as a "bunch of girlie men". No kidding the worst insult you can give a man, to be described as 'girl' like. The audience howled with laughter, and you know there had to be lot of women there.

apology. Did it seem sincere? Yes. However he was just apologizing for someone else's transgression and poor journalism. Why doesn't he apologize for his own one sided journalism?
Previously, when Obama had raised more cash than Clinton, he spoke of how great it was and implied that this showed many downsides of Clinton and her campaign. However, last night when reporting that now Clinton seems to have raised more cash than Obama and the Obama campaign is no longer releasing the numbers they were releasing so freely before, he reported implications of scandal, misrepresentation, and conspiracy by Clinton.
Due to his pro-Obama reporting, he has become a hypocrite, whose attacks on FOX now ring hollow.

This is what really is unaceptable. She must purchase media time to present herself as a qualified canddate. No free press for her.

Even with the FREE press and more $$$ for his champaign that Sen Obama is getting, he is still tied with Sen Clinton for the nomination.

She also has been accused of inability to budget champaign funds because Sen Obama get more for his money... well, yes he does because he doesn't have to pay for the free advertisement.

This is not setting well with anyone (not just women) who wants a bias free primary.

I'm amazed she is doing so well with all she has had against her. I believe this attributes to her popularity with women and men who have had to fight against great odds. And that is why the grass roots are coming together to assist her with $$$$$.

so now hillary is broke and has to raise money to "compete" or she's out now look here comes the money pouring in! smacks of extortion by the corrupt media.

voters are being blackmailed into sending in money that candidates have to spend on the media otherwise they will be declared dead by the corrupt media. pay to play. and then they force feed us garbage election coverage based on personality and horserace analysis while they sit on their porches on nantucket and play golf with jack welch.

Is Hillary against the Yahoo Microsoft take over I no she voted against GE energy bill...? KO has been just as bad, turn the TV on to Fax mute it and shut the door it will kill what little ratings they had it not enough just not to watch a little revenge please. Another dump to think about is Huff Post getting really bad there.

... for posting that link. It illustrated the pattern for me; I'm not surprised that Tucker & Joe S. would engage in such blatant misogyny - they are extremist right-wingers working for a normally more centrist outlet. I AM disappointed in Matthews - no excuses there. I stand by my discontentment with the Clintons, although, as stated, I'll vote for Hillary if she is the D nominee.

It looks like Shuster was completely unapologetic. It was then that this became a network issue. And when you read the emails between Shuster and the Clinton campaign it becomes pretty clear that Shuster is angry that Chelsea won't talk to reporters and that his remarks stemmed from that anger. Which make them worse, IMO, because it implies it wasn't just an innocent slip of the tongue, he was trying to lash out because he was angry.

What is it with reporters and pundits and their inability to simply admit a mistake and apologize? Honestly, it looks like if Shuster had been able to do that initially, the entire matter would've gone away. That he coudn't even see how his comment was inappropriate and totally unrelated to the complaint he has about the Clintons (Chelsea not talking to the press has nothing to do with whether or not she's being "pimped out") is remarkable.

especially so late after you commented, but a debate on MSNBC for Feb 26 was previously agreed to by Obama and Clinton. I haven't heard that he is pressing for that debate to continue, but if you have info on that, let me know.

I don't think Shuster's intentions (unlike those of Matthews) were all that malicious, but what he said was unacceptable. The Clintons are thought of as unscrupulous by a fair amount of people on a fair amout of issues, but I relly don't think they have ever exploited Chelsea for political purposes. Now that she's an adult, I'd say that, if anything, they've under-utilized her. I didn't see Shuster suggesting that Mitt Romney was prostituting his sons, even though they were a lot more active in his campaign than Chelsea.

I have a very difficult time with comments that are repeated in a way that can't be checked for accuracy. Who thinks the Clintons are unscrupulous and why?

I find Hillary and Obama to be a regular politicians. Between the two, I prefer the politician that demonstrated for years how to change the world than a regular politician that has learned to talk, like a preacher, but does not adhere to the talk. I will quote a message from an email my friend sent:

"She is someone who started a babysitting service for migrant workers, when she was in high school, for pete's sake! When she was first lady, she did so much for women around the world. Things that most people never heard about. She was instrumental in getting the World Bank to make all those micro loans to women's small business in places like Pakistan. She understood that when women got a little seed money to buy sewing machines, or brick kilns, or bakery ovens or whatever...then life improved and prosperity moved from the bottom up. The way it should."

This is NOT an isolated incident and suspending Shuster isn't enough. MSNBC needs to seriously change it's tone when it comes to how they treat women.

BTW - this is what the third "apology" coming out of that netword today right?

Has David Shuster called Chelsea or Hillary - both maybe - to apologize personally? Or will the network keep these on-air mea culpas in the hopes that Shusters vile and disgusting comment won't eat into their bottom line?

Shuster is a good and balanced reporter. I'm a fan of his work. I also know him personally. Enough is enough. He made a mistake and he paid for it.

I agree that MSNBC's election coverage has been insufferable to watch, but that's not because of Shuster. Matthews has been the primary offender and even Olbermann has been overtly hostile to the Clintons.

This is Shuster's first mistake. There's no need to end his career over it.

I agree that the suspension adequately addresses Shuster's mistake. But I don't agree that this is his only contribution to the awfulness that has become MSNBC.

Here's his reaction to Chris Matthews' apology, via Digby:

SHUSTER: Just one comment about Chris Matthews. I've worked with him for five and a half years. I've been alongside him, on camera, off, good times and bad. Nobody is more gracious and has a bigger heart, and has contributed more in a positive way to our political discourse than Chris Matthews.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, let me say, let me say --

SHUSTER: And to see him have to go through this is absolutely infuriating, to see the way these groups used him for pure political gain is absolutely infuriating.

I'm sorry, but that's just willful blindness regarding Matthews' clear misogyny and it's this inclination to defend Matthews by Shuster and others at the network that has contributed to the problems at MSNBC. There's no question Matthews is the bigger problem. But the reason Matthews is a problem is because guys like Shuster won't admit he's a problem and instead make excuses for him and blame Matthews' victims for complaining (even though it wasn't Clinton who complained, it was Media Matters and the public).

That line always gives me grief. So many people at the news and politics become chummy with each other, and then they go, "Oh, he is a nice guy". Maybe personally he is. But his public actions are what we are talking about.

I am not sure I make myself clear. The flip side is if you didn't know him? Would it make him a worse person? less worthy of leniency?? More worthy of comtempt?

Jeralyn does not need to explain herself, and I think we can guess what she meant by "I know him". This is what I think she meant: She's had many personal contact with Shuster to have a degree of certainty that he is not as mean as the comment appears. He just said something thoughtless and he has apologized, and that there is no need to pile on.

I tend to believe that those kind of comments are Freudian slips. But I'm not a psychologist.

to our host here -- before having to point out that this was not his first mistake, his first apology, and that it also had to be an apology to a woman. A Congresswoman. That ought to have put MSNBC on notice, but no. . . .

A bunch of white guys sitting around the table talking about how America is finally ready to have a black president and how Hillary is like Brezhnev at the top of the Politboro. They have absolutely no awareness of how sexist their comments are.

Because it implies that there's nothing new about having a woman president. America's ready for a black president - yay, America! But Hillary isn't anything to get excited about, she's just the same old thing.

It completely devalues not only the huge cultural shift a woman president would signal, but it ignores the very real obstacles women still face in society. There's no reason to cheer for Hillary because of course a woman can become president. Of course, she might also be used as a urinal target along the way.

thread, most of whom seem like really good guys, can't see the sexism in this is what is most appalling. In my post above, I point out that cultural attitudes inform opinions at an unconscious level. Most men have NO idea that they treat women badly or demean them in their speech or actions. That is why they get so upset when women accuse them of this. They feel totally innocent and are surprised that anyone could possibly object to what they feel is a widely-shared, universal opinion --barely debatable.

As a woman in academia, I've had plenty of time to absorb this lesson. For years it was impossible for a woman to get a job as a professor. It was only due to the pressure of the women's movement that these kinds of jobs finally opened up in the 1980s. However, the men were violently upset at what they saw as "affirmative action" for less qualified females. Why were the females less qualified? Because they just were --they were female. In male assumptions at that time, that was enough of a reason. It was obvious that women were lesser. Why should that be a matter of any doubt?

and have seen this movie before. What men get upset about is being told that they are sexist. Then, after insulting and demeaning you, they tell you that your protest is a sexist comment demeaning to them.

And I heard only later about some of the things said about me in the meetings that I wasn't told about (a favorite ploy).

Your comments about academe resonate -- I was turned down for tenure the first time, not that long ago, because some of my work was in women's studies.

And tenure means the guys who got it stay for many decades, often for half a century. Academe is supposed to be in the forefront of thought, but it's way behind in action. And the impact of that on students, on the future, explains a lot about the lack of progress. And women have been in college in numbers proportionate to their share of the population for only a decade or so.

We have a long way to go. (But don't call us "baby.":-) Btw, journalism departments have been behind a lot of other fields in academe in promoting women. Witness the impact at MSNBC, et al.

The way they describe her, dismiss her, compare her to some dictator, everything that is without reason and is just said for the sake of their dislike of her.

I've seen that a lot in Bill Maher, seen it a few times in Jon Stewart, and heaven know others are far worse.

I hate to say that, "you know it when you see it", because that's not fair to those who havne't experienced it. But to women, it's sometimes very very obvious. Taylor Marsh wrote a post once about 'freshness' vs. 'old' (guess who they described). She was justifiably angry. Because, we women have seen it all the time. This is the old resume double standard. Putting the woman's experience as indication of her being part of the old crowd.

You can bet that if Hillary wasn't a member of the Armed Services Committee, they'd say, Oh, she's great, but lacks military credentials. or they'd say, she lacks foreign policy credentials.

Do you honestly believe that Hillary could have had Obama's thin resume and gotten away with it??

The way they describe her, dismiss her, compare her to some dictator, everything that is without reason and is just said for the sake of their dislike of her.

That's just hatred. They do it to Democrats all the time, it doesn't matter if they're women.

Sexist is when they suggest that Clinton doesn't "appear Presidential", or is "weak" on certain issues, or appeals to "emotion", or is "unnatural".

There's plenty of sexist commentary -- overt and implicit -- about Clinton. But comparing her to a brutal dictator is almost the opposite. And frankly, that kind of comparison isn't necessarily bad for her acting as it does to counteract some of the "weak woman" frames.

I work Saturday's so watching Bill Maher and heading to bed is a ritual I look forward to. But tonight, for for 1st time ever, I had to turn it off--I knew it wasn't going to be good from his all-Obama "exit interview." And that BM allowed it after his great "if you hate Hillary it's all about you" comment, is ridiculous!

Is everyone drinking the cool-aid (sorry to use that term but how can anyone think BO both appeals to Und/Rep's but is also this big progressive?)

so please excuse. i wanted to post a thought as i have to rush out tomorrow for this and that.

i emailed josh marshall today about my disappointment in tmp and their obama support. i will add, of course, that it was very courteous, but that i no longer came to tmp due to their coverage.

josh wrote back and i was a bit surprised. it was very courteous to me as well. it was the content that surprised me. he said in the email he is not an obama supporter and certainly doesn't "worship" him. so i must have him confused with someone else. i used to term worship to discuss some of the supporters.

the comment he wasn't an obama supporter truly surprised me. josh in my opinion is a very bright guy, so i was left scratching my head.

"But one high-level NBC source told Politico that apologizing was an act of cowardice on behalf of the network.

"This is at least the second time they've caved to the Hillary Clinton campaign," a source told Politico, referring to Chris Matthews' recent apology over remarks he recently made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist. "What does this do to journalism?" "

Hmmm, what does it do to journalism to have to apologize for insulting remarks....um, I'd say it's a stretch to call MSNBC journalism.

There is also the fact that they got so many emails and phone calls of angry viewers that they set up a special phone line for them. I wouldn't call that coming from the Clinton campaign. Unless they seriously believe that the campaign put people up to this. They don't seem to be getting the message that a lot of their viewers are women, and that women seriously object to this kind of crap being constantly thrown in their faces. How hard is that to understand? And since when is it acceptable journalism to dispense bile and hatred at candidates?

I was one of those who complained, and I don't work for HRC campaign and did not support her until Edwards quit. It was my outrage after viewing the first video here on Thursday, and then Friday morning the video at MM that showed Shuster explaining himself that the comment was neither to be taken literally or pejoratively. I immediately started my email addressed to the editor asking for an apology to the Clintons and to the viewers. I was happy to see the apology.

I also emailed and complained although I am recently come to support Hillary Clinton and had been an Edwards supporter. Even when I was supporting Edwards, as a woman I was appalled at the rabid sexism on MSNBC. You should be repulsed at what is going on at MSNBC no matter what candidate you support. Just in common decency.

I've been watching Chris Matthews regularly for over seven years - while he may occasionally be boorish, he is not a kindred spirit with either Carlson or Joe S. Chris has an extremely sharp political mind, and experience to match. Tucker is the worst kind of hack, already canned by CNN, and clearly belongs at Fox. Joe rode into Congress in the GOP wave of `94, and has served as MSNBC's token right-winger for years.

As for Obama getting special treatment, I wonder if any of Hillary's strong supporters have considered the possibility that Barack simply has not angered as many people as the Clintons have?! It could just be karma, folks! I was a true believer in the Clintons from `92 until two weeks ago, during the S.C. primary - I won't ever think of either of them as highly as I once did. Perhaps others feel the same...

I wonder if any of Hillary's strong supporters have considered the possibility that Barack simply has not angered as many people as the Clintons have?!

But that doesn't give the media (and in some instances I use the term loosely ie Rush Limbaugh, and others of his ilk, and other major media outlets) an excuse to take potshots at Hillary's choice of clothes, the attractiveness of her daughter, her daughter being 'pimped out', Hillary only getting elected because her husband had a fling with a willing intern, and other equal bits of nastiness.

Can you imagine the uproar, or outrage if these same talking heads had said Obama got his job only because he was black?

The media coverage has been uneven when it comes to covering the two candidates, even when describing the simple things (when she laughs, the media calls it 'cackling', when she feels strongly she is 'having a melt down' etc etc. When he laughs, it's a laugh, and when he feels strongly.. well you get the drift.)

Obviously NOT. What was it exactly that the Clintons did in SC for you to do a 180 on them? Sounds like MSNBC managed to drive you over the cliff with their distorted coverage of the SC "racist" comments. Mission Accomplished. Forget about all they have done for AA their whole political careers. That one narrative took the Clintons from being held in high esteem by 90% of AA to now being regarded as "racist". It's disgusting and the talking heads on MSNBC are laughing their butts off.

"And in pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it."

msnbc probably did more than any other network to bring down gore in 2000. matthews was perhaps gore's biggest detractor on cable news.

msnbc did more than their fair share, second only to fox, to bring down john kerry in 2004. matthews had a swiftboat segment every night basically between the convention and election. he gave them a platform to smear john kerry every night for three solid months when it mattered.

now, msnbc is in an all out war against hillary clinton while simultaneously attempting to coronate obama the nominee through byzantine spin about "the delegate count".

obviously, this is a huge problem for obama in my book. he either is completely unaware of msnbc's history, or is aware and refuses to address it because it benefits him.

obama is nothing more than a media creation in my opinion. he is being used by the media either intentionally or unintentionally so that they will have a race to cover. either way it does not bode well as far as i can see it.

Most people seem to prefer the soft news or analysis shows that highlight personality and camaraderie among friendly, joking hosts and regular guests. Bias is more easily acknowledged and accepted. The news is fun and friendly and obviously less professional. My boss jokes around in ways that make me uncomfortable at times, what are you gonna do, file a lawsuit at every boorish remark? He crossed a line, he was punished, apologized, some accept it, some won't, move on. Or maybe we should execute him, after a fair trial, of course.

the only choices are "soft" news or all-out bias and hatred for one select candidate and adoration for the other?

Your boss is not the same as what is supposed to be a free and fair national press using the public airwaves. There's a reason the press is mentioned in the First Amendment. There's a reason it's the FIRST Amendment. That's because it is our right to have a fair press, not just a free one.

We need to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine.

You also conveniently ignore that fact that this is not just one incident of "crossing a line," it is endemic in our media. This is NOT professional. I have a journalism degree. We spend hours in classes learning how to not be sexist, racist, ageist, biased etc. in our coverage.

Today's talking heads throw all that out the window, and their corporate masters apparently pay them well to further their own bias and bigotry.

it would be very beneficial if Schuster wants his job at Msnbc to give him the "opportunity" to head show segments focusing exclusively on women's issues.

Those who have attacked the uproar over this don't seem to realize what's happened or what's at risk, stating it as not important. My wife informs me that this is important because it goes to the core of relationships, of harmony and conflict, and how that plays out in our society. That means it affects everything. It is the primordial bread and butter issue-- it affects my children, parents,business, friendships, informal and formal relationships. If it is ok to denigrate women then it degrades all our relationships economic, political, social, psychological, etc. Schuster's statement brings it to the fore and is symbolic of the abuse, whether lesser or greater, that women (and men) have experienced for ages. If one allowsw the symbol to occur without protest or challenge, then the abuse will grow.
From this perspective, I doubt there is much that is more important than to stand against this symbol for abuse.
Wars? Injustices? Murders? You name it-- they are all affected by our views of relationships and what may seem shallow or petty on the surface may actually have broader and deeper ramifications. The outrage, for myself and many others is not feigned it's real and deep.

we did not have the degeneration of our national discourse brought down to the level of "locker room talk." What we have now is free speech for corporations to engage in vicious propaganda and bring down honest and worthy candidates (mostly Democrats) based on sliming them with ridicule and innuendo.

Those in the comments above who say that the corporate world does NOT want Hillary (just as they didn't want Gore, Kerry, Dean or Edwards) are right. The corporations who control our airwaves and other media are very successful at getting the Democrats they feel are the easiest for the Rethugs to defeat, thus keeping all threats to their bottom line at bay.

The best thing the Dems could do if they get elected by some miracle is to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Being fair and presenting both sides and not calling the daughter of one of the candidates essentially a whore -is not surpressing free speech. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, freedom of speech does not mean crying fire in a crowded theater. It also doesn't mean the right of television executives to fill the airwaves with hate speech and influence elections.

to blogs??? If not, why not? Times have changed, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse. I'm not sure how well the fairness doctrine could be enforced in this day and age. Once people have experienced free speech as they currently understand it, eg, extremist baboons like Rush Limbaugh, not sure if you can take it away from them again. It's a nice thought 'though and I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

people speak they certainly have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how abusive. Since people with opposing views have an equal right to respond, there is no disruption of any sort of balance of power.

But the five corporations which control all the major news outlets on TV -are using the public airwaves (which belong to everyone) to try to manipulate elections. The power of these corporations in comparison to the average individual is enormous. The power of visual imagery and "in-group" mockery to change minds is enormous. They have an obligation to stay neutral. When we had the fairness doctrine, they did. Without it, we have certainly learned, as we have when the government has abolished other "regulations", we have unfettered capitalism abusing the system for the reward of a very few people. That is an oligarchy, not what I think our founding father's had in mind, I believe, when they created the First Amendment.

... times have changed. The cat's out of the bag. Do you really think the masses of right wing zealots would give up their Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity? I just can't see it happening. It's a nice thought, but in the larger historical perspective, this is the way publishing has always been.

(And I'm sure some of the more tostesterone infected neanderthals here will spit the primordial ooze from their mouths and say something denigrating about women to try to counter this, but we can't hear you! La-la-la-la!)

Hillary did nothing to stop them... until said bile was already a recorded part of the discourse. Note that we've heard nothing from these surrogates since.

I know that the Clintons had always done a great deal for people of all colors/genders... that's what made their behavior truly heartbreaking to me. I was always a huge supporter and defender - of late, I've been reconsidering. It looks to me as if perhaps those who said these two would say anything to get elected may have been right.

...is the simple stupidity of the comment. Chelsea is an ADULT, her parents can't MAKE her do anything. Does Shuster think she's being drugged and shoved out there? What an idiot, and on a deeper level than the sexist.